Joy and Solemnityhttps://cameronshaffer.com
The Website of Cameron ShafferThu, 05 Sep 2019 03:52:31 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.3https://cameronshaffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cropped-Burning-Bush-32x32.jpgJoy and Solemnityhttps://cameronshaffer.com
3232On Pete Enns and Book Reviewshttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/08/19/on-pete-enns-and-book-reviews/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/08/19/on-pete-enns-and-book-reviews/#respondMon, 19 Aug 2019 14:16:40 +0000https://cameronshaffer.com/?p=789this "review" of Pete Enns' most recent book How the Bible Actually Works by Robert Yarbrough of Covenant Seminary with this review (part 1, part 2) by Geoff Holsclaw of Northern Seminary. Both reviews come to similar conclusions about the effect of Enns' understanding of the Bible, and both reviewers argue that Enns' attempt to take the Bible on its own terms fails to do just that. But Yarbrough's criticisms do not take into account how Enns arrives where he does, while Holsclaw's review orients around charitably and fairly engaging with Enns' work. In other words, Yarbrough's review is not about Enns' book, but about attacking Enns' conclusions while masquerading as a book review, whereas Holsclaw actually reviews it. I am sure Enns knows which reviewer dealt fairly with his work and accurately represented his book, and I know which person I would want reviewing anything I were to write in the future. Relatedly, Enns has a guide on how to not to review books.]]>Compare this “review” of Pete Enns’ most recent book How the Bible Actually Works by Robert Yarbrough of Covenant Seminary with this review (part 1, part 2) by Geoff Holsclaw of Northern Seminary. Both reviews come to similar conclusions about the effect of Enns’ understanding of the Bible, and both reviewers argue that Enns’ attempt to take the Bible on its own terms fails to do just that. But Yarbrough’s criticisms do not take into account how Enns arrives where he does, while Holsclaw’s review orients around charitably and fairly engaging with Enns’ work. In other words, Yarbrough’s review is not about Enns’ book, but about attacking Enns’ conclusions while masquerading as a book review, whereas Holsclaw actually reviews it. I am sure Enns knows which reviewer dealt fairly with his work and accurately represented his book, and I know which person I would want reviewing anything I were to write in the future. Relatedly, Enns has a guide on how to not to review books.
]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/08/19/on-pete-enns-and-book-reviews/feed/0Trying to Make Sense of National or Classical Conservatismhttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/08/12/trying-to-make-sense-of-national-or-classical-conservatism/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/08/12/trying-to-make-sense-of-national-or-classical-conservatism/#respondMon, 12 Aug 2019 16:55:41 +0000https://cameronshaffer.com/?p=787National Review makes a strong case that liberalism, in its classical, Lockian sense, is antithetical to a Christian and conservative vision of society. A government and society dedicated to protecting an individual's right to do whatever, as long as that practice does not infringe on anyone else's rights to do what they want, inevitably tends towards elevating a set of "neutral" values as good and treating any divergence from those values as social deviancy. Liberalism does not create a world where a multi-value society flourishes, but inevitably demands that all members of that society become liberal. I have written about this in the past as it relates to abortion and Satanism.
Doughtery argues for a vision of classical conservatism in the tradition of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk as an alternative to liberalism. While Doughtery does not mention National Conservatism, he is responding on the movement's behalf to George F. Will's conservative defense of classical liberalism...]]>Michael Brendan Doughtery of National Reviewmakes a strong case that liberalism, in its classical, Lockian sense, is antithetical to a Christian and conservative vision of society. A government and society dedicated to protecting an individual’s right to do whatever, as long as that practice does not infringe on anyone else’s rights to do what they want, inevitably tends towards elevating a set of “neutral” values as good and treating any divergence from those values as social deviancy. Liberalism does not create a world where a multi-value society flourishes, but inevitably demands that all members of that society become liberal. I have written about this in the past as it relates to abortion and Satanism.

Doughtery argues for a vision of classical conservatism in the tradition of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk as an alternative to liberalism. While Doughtery does not mention National Conservatism, he is responding on the movement’s behalf to George F. Will’s conservative defense of classical liberalism. National Conservatism as a movement had a very public gathering in July (Brad Littlejohn at Mere Orthodoxy and Emma Green at The Atlantic had good writeups on the conference and movement) and has elicited a lot of conservative criticism of the classical liberal variety. Bret Stephens in The New York Timescompared it to the serfdom warned against by Friedrich Hayek, with Will calling the movement “Elizabeth Warren conservatism.” Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (a fellow presbyterian!) is the political expression of the movement, but his proposed legislation has been rebuked on classical liberal grounds even by Doughtery’s National Review colleague David French as part of the “Republican Daddy State.”

I am not sure what to make of this debate. On the one hand, the critiques of Stephens and Will seem to be going after the weakest versions of the National Conservatism. On the other, their critiques, along with French’s, demonstrate the biggest problem with National Conservatism and Doughtery’s understanding of classical conservatism: the specific proposals in this ideological do seem to embrace an illiberal version of society, that is, a society where freedom is not a given and determining the way to the social good is driven by the government, not the people. Alan Jacobs summarized French’s take on Hawley’s bill this way, “Is it a proper function of government to rescue the citizenry from their own stupidity? That is, can plain old collective dumbassery become a social crisis sufficiently severe that government has the right, and perhaps the obligation, to intervene? French says No; Senator Josh Hawley says Yes.” Stephens’ and Will’s criticisms of National Conservatism are simply engaging with this question on a bigger scale, and saying the movement is just a conservative veneer over liberal fascism.

And I think that’s the problem of application of a classical conservative political model in a liberal society: how can you have a classically conservative society and government without replacing hallmarks of the liberal order (democracy, constitutional protections of liberty [e.g. the first amendment], property rights, free markets, equality regardless of race, etc…) with an unrestrained government? You might be able to, but answering that question is necessary if a classical conservatism is ever to take hold in America. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, all sorts of social systems have been tried, and classical liberalism is the worst, except all the others. Classical conservatism needs to demonstrate that it can better than liberalism, not only avoid liberalism’s faults.

Gospel-licious.
Our church is a gospel church that is gospel crazy for gospel living. We believe that gospel discipleship makes gospel people who create gospel change and gospel dynamics. We believe in gospel administration for gospel organising. Gospel youth work is essential for gospel kids. A gospel welcome for gospel needers!

Ramsey argues that the gospel isn't simply the announcement of news (Levy's position, as well as Michael Horton's and Tim Keller's mentioned in the article), but does include "advice". Ramsey relies on Anthony Burgess (a Westminster Divine and hero of mine) to make the case for a narrow and broad definition of the gospel, and I think is generally correct. But I wanted to take a stab at defining the gospel, and avoid the "narrow v. broad" paradigm for an organically expanding definition that encompasses both the news of what Christ has done and the need for response...]]>Patrick Ramsey at Meet the Puritans rhetorically asks this question, and cites Paul Levy’s satirical 2011 article on the subject,

Gospel-licious.

Our church is a gospel church that is gospel crazy for gospel living. We believe that gospel discipleship makes gospel people who create gospel change and gospel dynamics. We believe in gospel administration for gospel organising. Gospel youth work is essential for gospel kids. A gospel welcome for gospel needers!

Ramsey argues that the gospel isn’t simply the announcement of news (Levy’s position, as well as Michael Horton’s and Tim Keller’s mentioned in the article), but does include “advice”. Ramsey relies on Anthony Burgess (a Westminster Divine and hero of mine) to make the case for a narrow and broad definition of the gospel, and I think is generally correct. But I wanted to take a stab at defining the gospel, and avoid the “narrow v. broad” paradigm for an organically expanding definition that encompasses both the news of what Christ has done and the need for response.

The gospel is:

The good news is that Jesus Christ is king,
And that his kingdom has been inaugurated by his death and resurrection.
By his death, Jesus saves his people from their sin, and by his resurrection restores them to life.
His kingdom is the eternal kingdom of heaven, and only those redeemed from their sins may enter.
Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God, who brings and rules God’s kingdom.
The kingdom of heaven is at hand, so sinners must repent and trust in Jesus:
Trusting that Christ’s work is necessary and sufficient to save them,
And that his salvation was motivated solely by the gracious love of God, not by anything done by them.
The promise of God is forgiveness and salvation to all who trust in Christ.
Following Jesus requires redeemed sinners to turn from their wicked ways,
and follow Christ in a new obedience,
an obedience to all that he has taught in his word.

This obviously does not hit on all the core Christian doctrines (i.e. Trinity, the Holy Spirit, justification, baptism, etc…), but summarizes the good news to be preached, prioritizing the indicative (who Jesus is and what he has done), which leads to the imperative (what the work of Christ necessarily demands on our part), while acknowledging that the fullness of what Christ demands of the redeemed is found in scripture.

In teaching and preaching, especially with teenagers, the first two lines are the ones I usually use as my definition of the gospel. It’s easy to remember, accurate, and the rest of the definition flows from it. To ask the question, “What does it mean that Christ’s kingdom has been inaugurated by his death and resurrection?” leads to the subjects of sin and atonement, incarnation, repentance, and so on. I think my definition also avoids bifurcating the “narrow” and “broad” gospel definitions used by Ramsey and some of the Puritans, while not confusing what Christ has done and what the church does as the gospel, which was Levy’s point.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/06/12/what-is-the-gospel/feed/0Church Is a Place You Gohttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/06/10/church-is-a-place-you-go/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/06/10/church-is-a-place-you-go/#respondMon, 10 Jun 2019 14:42:01 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=764to last year's volume, and contributed again to the 2019 volume which was just released. My article is called "Church Is a Place You Go", and was also the subject of an interview I gave a few weeks ago on the E.A.R. Podcast. The opening paragraphs of my article can be found below...]]>The Westminster Theological Society is a group a ministers in the EPC who are striving to keep the denominational discussions and priorities centered around scripture. In 2017 they began publishing the Westminster Society Journal, which is aimed at EPC ministers, ruling elders, and interested lay people. I contributed an essay to last year’s volume, and contributed again to the 2019 volume which was just released. My article is called “Church Is a Place You Go”, and was also the subject of an interview I gave a few weeks ago on the E.A.R. Podcast. The opening paragraphs of my article can be found below.

What do you say when a college student in your church informs you that his Christian-oriented conversations with a couple of friends over coffee count as going to church? Or when one of your regular attenders stops coming on Sunday mornings so she can go serve her neighbors and be the church rather than go to another boring meeting?

The innocence and apparent simplicity of these questions belies a deeper complexity on the very nature of the church and the individual Christian. The Westminster Confession (WCF) describes the visible church as the kingdom of God to which has been given God’s worship, word, and sacraments,1 and is a society to which believers and their children belong.2Does God’s worship, word, and sacraments belong to Christians as individuals (or as individuals gathered together), or do they belong to something more formal and institutional? Is the visible church the sum of its parts (i.e. the total, individual membership of Christ’s body) or does it require the more extensive, institutional structure inherent in a society? Considering the claim that worship, the doctrine of the gospel, and the sacraments are given by God to the visible church and no other entity, the stakes in answering this question are high. What God has given his people in order for them to possess life, namely Christ himself, comes through the visible church. The church father Cyprian put it this way, “No one can have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother.”3 God provides Christ to his people through the visible church, which makes answering the question about the relationship between individual Christians and this divine institution imperative: Are Christians the church or do Christians go to church?

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/06/10/church-is-a-place-you-go/feed/0An Addendum on ‘Restoring the Confession’https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/06/03/an-addendum-on-restoring-the-confession/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/06/03/an-addendum-on-restoring-the-confession/#respondMon, 03 Jun 2019 20:45:05 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=762call to confessional renewal in the EPC.
First, in regards to Christ's headship over the church, I said, "Any pastoral candidate taking exception to the statement, 'And the claim of any man to be the head of the Church is unscriptural and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ,' should be barred from ministry. Anyone unwilling to say that it is unscriptural and sinful to claim the headship of the church should not be in a position to shepherd the church."
Some have asked if this means I believe this should an "essential", i.e. something elevated from within our confessional system that is non-negotiable. The answer is a qualified no. This is the lone instance where I argued that something should be added to the WCF rather than being replaced or deleted. The Westminster Standards are not a haphazard or total compilation of biblical data, but contain the system of doctrine found in the scripture. Therefore, if something is to be added to the Standards, even if it is being returned after previous deletion as in this example, a case needs to be made that it represents a truth that is part of the system of doctrine found in the Bible. A counter example could be helpful: How many judges are there in the Old Testament? 12? 14? 16? There is a definitive biblical answer, even if that answer depends on a variety of factors (e.g. what counts as a judge?) But this doctrine, while biblical, is not part of the Bible's system of doctrine, nor would disagreement on this proscribe someone's ordination to the pastoral office...]]>I need to add an addendum of two pieces to part one of my call to confessional renewal in the EPC.

First, in regards to Christ’s headship over the church, I said, “Any pastoral candidate taking exception to the statement, ‘And the claim of any man to be the head of the Church is unscriptural and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ,’ should be barred from ministry. Anyone unwilling to say that it is unscriptural and sinful to claim the headship of the church should not be in a position to shepherd the church.”

Some have asked if this means I believe this should an “essential”, i.e. something elevated from within our confessional system that is non-negotiable. The answer is a qualified no. This is the lone instance where I argued that something should be added to the WCF rather than being replaced or deleted. The Westminster Standards are not a haphazard or total compilation of biblical data, but contain the system of doctrine found in the scripture. Therefore, if something is to be added to the Standards, even if it is being returned after previous deletion as in this example, a case needs to be made that it represents a truth that is part of the system of doctrine found in the Bible. A counter example could be helpful: How many judges are there in the Old Testament? 12? 14? 16? There is a definitive biblical answer, even if that answer depends on a variety of factors (e.g. what counts as a judge?) But this doctrine, while biblical, is not part of the Bible’s system of doctrine, nor would disagreement on this proscribe someone’s ordination to the pastoral office.

On the other hand, to reject the doctrine that any man claiming headship over the church is a usurpation of Christ, is significant enough that no one rejecting it should be ordained. It can be inferred from this conclusion that this doctrine is therefore part of the system of doctrine in scripture due to the significance of rejecting it. This is not the only litmus test for the importance of a doctrine, but it is a helpful heuristic in determining whether something is critical. The implication of this should be pretty clear to the question of “essentials.” The Westminster Standards operate on the assumption that their contents are the essentials of the system of doctrine found in the scriptures. Thus, this (re)addition to the WCF would not elevate this doctrine to a special place, but put it in a position of equality with the rest of the confessional system. I would not go so far as to ban presbyteries from granting an exception to a minister who has scruples with this doctrine (though I can’t imagine ever voting to allow such an exception) any more than I would single out any other particular aspect of the Standards as acceptable to reject. Scruples and exceptions all depend on the reasoning and wording of the exceptions being stated, and as long as the essentials of the doctrine are left intact (however a presbytery or synod may define that), the church court has the right to allow them.

Second, I wish I had included Geerhardus Vos’ thoughts on the 1903 revisions to the WCF. A brief summary of Vos’ thoughts can be found at Log College Press.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/06/03/an-addendum-on-restoring-the-confession/feed/0On the Short History of Presbyterians and Clerical Collarshttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/29/on-the-short-history-of-presbyterians-and-clerical-collars/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/29/on-the-short-history-of-presbyterians-and-clerical-collars/#respondWed, 29 May 2019 16:41:31 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=758Here we see several members of the 18th c. Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) having their hackles raised over some ostentatious clergymen wearing scarlet cloaks and cravats. Later they hold a Synod where they decide that they ought to wear black gowns and to make use of neck bands. This paragraph shows us two things: the wearing of cravats was considered to be distinctive clerical garb, and the synod of the kirk decided ultimately that modest use of neckbands was permitted...]]>PCA pastor and visiting professor at Covenant Seminary Tim LeCroy has a great article dealing with the presbyterian origins of the clerical collar.

Here we see several members of the 18th c. Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) having their hackles raised over some ostentatious clergymen wearing scarlet cloaks and cravats. Later they hold a Synod where they decide that they ought to wear black gowns and to make use of neck bands. This paragraph shows us two things: the wearing of cravats was considered to be distinctive clerical garb, and the synod of the kirk decided ultimately that modest use of neckbands was permitted…

The last bit of history to cover regards the origin of the modern clerical collar. According to several sources, including one cited by the Banner of Truth website (no Romanizing group), the modern clerical collar was invented by a Presbyterian. In the mid 19th century heavily starched detachable collars were in great fashion. This can been seen up through the early part of the 20th century if one has watched any period television shows or movies…Yet in the mid to late 19th century it became the fashion of the day to turn these collars down. You and I still wear a turned down collar. The origin of the modern clerical collar is simply then to turn or fold the collar down over the clerical cravat, leaving the white cloth exposed in the middle. According to the Glasgow Herald of December 6,1894, the folded down detachable clerical collar was invented by the Rev Dr Donald McLeod, a Presbyterian minister in the Church of Scotland.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/29/on-the-short-history-of-presbyterians-and-clerical-collars/feed/0Update on the Redemption Creedhttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/24/update-on-the-redemption-creed/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/24/update-on-the-redemption-creed/#respondFri, 24 May 2019 19:50:17 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=755Redemption Creed is now available, as is an updated version of its brief guide.
I finished the prior version of the creed in January, 2018. I was mostly content with its doctrine and organization, but was advised that it was too long (it was about 240 words and 326 syllables, compared to 220/290 for the Nicene Creed and 110/160 for the Apostles' Creed, respectively). I took over a year off from editing it in order to gain better perspective, and it is now much smaller, compact, and effective.
I solicited a lot of feedback in the drafting process, which was quite interesting. A number of people (mostly Anglicans) thought it was an attempted usurpation of the ecumenical creeds, which was not my intent. Quite a few people (mostly Reformed) thought that it needed more information or emphases on different aspects of redemption. That would be nice, but it was ballooning into something unwieldy. One of the interesting differences between the Nicene and Apostles' creeds is the precision of the former; you can't defend historic Trinitarian orthodoxy from explicit statements in the Apostles' Creed the way you can from the Nicene. Yet, the Apostles' Creed is orthodox and provides a creedal foundation for catholic Trinitarianism. There are "hooks" within the Apostles' Creed that draw people to the more explicit formulations of the Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian creeds. In the end, that was the model I decided to follow for the Redemption Creed. Prioritize accuracy in what is there, emphasize Reformational soteriology, and make it usable. It is not a substitute for either the ecumenical creeds or the Reformed confessions and catechisms, but hopefully a valuable, liturgical supplement.]]>An updated version of the Redemption Creed is now available, as is an updated version of its brief guide.

I finished the prior version of the creed in January, 2018. I was mostly content with its doctrine and organization, but was advised that it was too long (it was about 240 words and 326 syllables, compared to 220/290 for the Nicene Creed and 110/160 for the Apostles’ Creed, respectively). I took over a year off from editing it in order to gain better perspective, and it is now much smaller, compact, and effective.

I solicited a lot of feedback in the drafting process, which was quite interesting. A number of people (mostly Anglicans) thought it was an attempted usurpation of the ecumenical creeds, which was not my intent. Quite a few people (mostly Reformed) thought that it needed more information or emphases on different aspects of redemption. That would be nice, but it was ballooning into something unwieldy. One of the interesting differences between the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds is the precision of the former; you can’t defend historic Trinitarian orthodoxy from explicit statements in the Apostles’ Creed the way you can from the Nicene. Yet, the Apostles’ Creed is orthodox and provides a creedal foundation for catholic Trinitarianism. There are “hooks” within the Apostles’ Creed that draw people to the more explicit formulations of the Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian creeds. In the end, that was the model I decided to follow for the Redemption Creed. Prioritize accuracy in what is there, emphasize Reformational soteriology, and make it usable. It is not a substitute for either the ecumenical creeds or the Reformed confessions and catechisms, but hopefully a valuable, liturgical supplement.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/24/update-on-the-redemption-creed/feed/0Interview on the E.A.R. Podcasthttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/20/interview-on-the-e-a-r-podcast/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/20/interview-on-the-e-a-r-podcast/#commentsMon, 20 May 2019 16:04:59 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=741found on Anchor, as well as a number of other platforms...]]>I had the please of being interviewed and having a conversation with Brandon Queen on the E.A.R. Podcast. We talked about the subject my article in the forthcoming volume of the ‘Westminster Society Journal’. The title of the article and the interview is “Church is a Place You Go.”

You can find the interview below. The E.A.R. Podcast can be found on Anchor, as well as a number of other platforms.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/20/interview-on-the-e-a-r-podcast/feed/2A Call for Confessional Renewal in the EPC: Part I, Restoring the Confessionhttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/17/a-call-for-confessional-renewal-in-the-epc-part-i-restoring-the-confession/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/17/a-call-for-confessional-renewal-in-the-epc-part-i-restoring-the-confession/#commentsFri, 17 May 2019 12:53:50 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=736can be found here. All posts in the series, as the become available, can be found here.
The aim of this call to renewal is to begin confessional revival and resourcement. The desire is that this series will prompt meaningful conversation in the EPC over the role of the Confession and Catechisms, conversation that will lead to action and revision. Since as elders of the EPC we have given our sincere word that we affirm and receive the WCF, WLC, and WSC as containing the system of doctrine found in the scriptures, we already affirm their importance: What unites us theologically is our sincere affirmation of, and submission to, the Confession’s and Catechisms’ faithfulness in presenting God’s rule of faith and obedience The Confession and Catechisms of our church are serious, and should be the primary theological framework for the lives of our congregations and our ministerial practice.
Part I of this series evaluates the modifications to the Westminster Confession of Faith held by the EPC...]]>This is part one of four in a series calling for confessional renewal in the EPC. Part I of this series can be found here. All posts in the series, as the become available, can be found here.

The aim of this call to renewal is to begin confessional revival and resourcement. The desire is that this series will prompt meaningful conversation in the EPC over the role of the Confession and Catechisms, conversation that will lead to action and revision. Since as elders of the EPC we have given our sincere word that we affirm and receive the WCF, WLC, and WSC as containing the system of doctrine found in the scriptures, we already affirm their importance: What unites us theologically is our sincere affirmation of, and submission to, the Confession’s and Catechisms’ faithfulness in presenting God’s rule of faith and obedience The Confession and Catechisms of our church are serious, and should be the primary theological framework for the lives of our congregations and our ministerial practice.

Part I of this series evaluates the modifications to the Westminster Confession of Faith held by the EPC. The key takeaways are:

The EPC is the only Reformed denomination in the world to require ministerial subscription to the revisions made to the WCF from 1903 onwards. In many cases, the EPC is the only denomination to even include these revisions in its confession. This puts the EPC out of sync with the greater Reformed church, and should be something the EPC remedies.

The EPC holds, with some modification, to the 1959 PCUS version of the WCF on marriage. This version detaches marriage from its creational purpose, deviates from scripture on the relationship between marriage and the church, and simultaneously allows significant license for divorce while being anti-victim to casualties of adultery and abandonment.

In the 1980s the EPC eliminated any variation of the assertion that it is sinful to usurp the headship of Christ over the church. Any pastoral candidate taking exception to the statement, “And the claim of any man to be the head of the Church is unscriptural and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ,” should be barred from ministry. Anyone unwilling to say that it is unscriptural and sinful to claim the headship of the church should not be in a position to shepherd the church.

The EPC holds unique revisions of the WCF and WLC which state that ministers of the word are “ordinarily”, rather than the “only”, persons to administer the sacraments. These revisions not only ignore the unified testimony of the Reformed tradition on scripture’s teaching, but also embrace bifurcation of the ministry of the word and sacrament, leading to a meager ministry of both.

The EPC possess two additional chapters in the WCF on the Holy Spirit and the God’s love and mission. The only other Reformed denomination that required subscription to these chapters was the ARP (the EPC’s oldest fraternal partner), and they deleted these chapters in 2014. The ARP correctly concluded that the chapter on the Holy Spirit misidentified the work of the Holy Spirit in divine redemption, and that the chapter on God’s love is mistaken in its understanding of the scope, nature, and application of Gods’ love. These chapters were added to soften the Reformed theology of the WCF, and end up distorting its system of doctrine.

]]>https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/17/a-call-for-confessional-renewal-in-the-epc-part-i-restoring-the-confession/feed/1Additional Warrants for Abolition from the Westminster Larger Catechismhttps://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/13/additional-warrants-for-abolition-from-the-westminster-larger-catechism/
https://cameronshaffer.com/2019/05/13/additional-warrants-for-abolition-from-the-westminster-larger-catechism/#respondMon, 13 May 2019 18:46:25 +0000http://cameronshaffer.com/?p=731have written previously on how the teachings of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms proscribed chattel slavery as practiced in colonial and Antebellum America. An additional basis for this position was brought to my attention in John Murray's excellent book on Christian ethics, Principles of Conduct. Murray includes a brilliant chapter on the ethics of labor and its implications for slavery...]]>I have written previously on how the teachings of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms proscribed chattel slavery as practiced in colonial and Antebellum America. An additional basis for this position was brought to my attention in John Murray’s excellent book on Christian ethics, Principles of Conduct. Murray includes a brilliant chapter on the ethics of labor and its implications for slavery. Murray argued persuasively that American slavery violated the biblical principle that the “laborer is worthy of his wages” (Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 24:15, 1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Timothy 5:18). Slaves were not paid for their labor, and therefore this principle was disobeyed by slave owners.

The Westminster Larger Catechism 141 states that the 8th Commandment requires, “truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to every one his due.” The WLC’s citations include Romans 13:7 as a way of substantiating that those who labor are owed the value of their work. Slavery as practiced in America violated the 8th Commandment and the Westminster Standards’ teaching on it by withholding from slaves what they were owed for their work. And if slaves were actually paid fairly for their labor, the necessary implication is that they would possess the freedom to either work or not, a freedom incompatible with the practice of slavery. Faithfully following the Westminster Standards would have ended the practice of American slavery.